Am I wasting money on the theory of Bi-amping?


As a long time audiophile I'm finally able to bi-amp my setup. I'm using two identical amps in a vertical bi-amp configuration. 
 

Now me not fully understanding all of the ins/outs of internal speaker crossovers and what not. I've read quite a few people tell me that bi-amping like I'm doing whether it's vertical or horizontal bi-amping is a waste since there's really not a improvement because of how speaker manufacturers design the internal crossovers. 
 

Can anyone explain to a third grader how it's beneficial or if the naysayers are correct in the statement?

ibisghost

@russbutton  *S*  Someone who can R(ant) & R(ave)s' better than me.... ;)

...and does a fine cover of the sense of the process...

1st serious speakers were a pair of 901s2s' with it's active eq.... Yes, not a 'xover' in fact, but they'd sound all sort of strange without....

Next iteration was a pair of Infinitys' with an equalizer in the tape loop, which began to allow for a crude DSPish approach; xover still onboard the speakers, but edging closer....

Following that, the Kenwood L series with the outboard mono amps....an AudioControl C-101 eq with a calibrated mic that allowed to employ a more serious

launch into DSP.  Sure, the AMT 1Bs' still had their onboard  xover, but it was just a 2 way that handed most off to the large Heils'....and the xover just tweaked the point between....  I still have a pair of the xovers for references' sake, but on the shelf....

These days.....one could say 'in excess', but...*G* I prefer 'flexibility'....

Xovers': a Behringer, a dbx, a Parasound C2, and an ESS Eclipse 2241AM;  the latter an unusual item I've devious designs upon....

Eq available: The 'puter can supply whatever wherever, pre or post....as can a pair of Behringers' and the C2.  All of which can host a mic....

14 channels of amplification, 12 of which can be mono'd to 6.

And a self amp'd sub.

"Bi-amp....how...quaint...." ;)

 

 

 

I'm in the camp of using an active x-over and horizontal bi-amping w/different amps, using tubes to power the top and SS on the bottom.  The woofers have been removed from the x-over and wired directly to the binding posts.  (Speakers were built bi-wireable so two sets of binding posts are present.)  I use an original Wavelet active x-over and just picked up a MiniDSP DDRC 88A/BM that I plan to substitute for the Wavelet as I want to see if DIRAC w/BM is an improvement over the Bohmer room correction. 

Never heard of horizontal and vertical bi-amping. 

My assumption for passive bi amping with speakers built for it always was that by removing the 'bridge', I get a low pass for the woofer and a seperate high pass for the mid/high. The use 2 amps to feed those. 

I now assume that horizontal/vertical deals with the option of using 2 stereo amp for the 2x2 'feeds'. Either one stereo amp for each SPEAKER or one stereo amp for the woofers and one stereo amp for the mid/high. If that is the case, what is considered 'vertical'?

 

 

I read a few posts claiming BENEFITS of passive crossovers (vs active), but none mentions issues like phase shift from those passive components. 

And can't those mentioned 'beneftis' of passive crossovers not 'simulated' or realized in active crossovers as well?